Landlines may be saved in California – for now. What this means for consumers nationwide

California utility regulators are proposing rejecting a request by AT&T to eliminate its responsibility to provide traditional landline phone service. That could have implications nationwide, a consumer advocate said.

Fewer telephone companies are offering basic landline phone service as the utilities say the copper-wire infrastructure is old and expensive to maintain, and the demand for landline phone service is low as consumers move to mobile and other services.

But consumer advocates nationwide have cried foul, saying basic landline service is important for the country's most vulnerable, including senior citizens who don't want to rely on cell service, consumers who can't afford cellular service and those in rural areas that may not have good access to cell or broadband internet services.

What happened in California?

Earlier this year, the California Public Utilities Commission opened public comments on an application by AT&T to waive its responsibilities to be what’s called “Carrier of Last Resort” (COLR), meaning the utility has to offer the copper-wire landline service.

The utility and many of its peers have been petitioning state utility commissions and legislators, asking to be relieved of the task.

On Friday, Administrative Law Judge Thomas J. Glegola wrote a decision proposing that the California commission reject AT&T's waiver. The proposal will be voted on by the commission at its June 20 meeting. The judge also proposed that the commission look at the rules outlining the carrier of last resort service obligations.

In a press release announcing the upcoming vote, the commission said the public response to AT&T's request "was extensive with over 5,000 public comments received into the record and eight Public Forums held in-person in three cities and virtually across the state, drawing more than 5,800 attendees."

The proposed rejection "underscores the critical importance of ensuring universal access to essential telecommunications services for all Californians," the commission said in its statement. "As the designated COLR, AT&T plays a pivotal role in providing reliable telephone service to communities across the state."

The commission added that while the communications company said mobile wireless and other services could fill the void, "the CPUC found AT&T did not meet the requirements for COLR withdrawal. Specifically, AT&T failed to demonstrate the availability of replacement providers willing and able to serve as COLR, nor did AT&T prove that alternative providers met the COLR definition."

Public commenters also highlighted the unreliability of voice alternatives such as cell service or Voice Over Internet Protocol services (VoIp) which are internet phone providers, the commission said.

What is AT&T's response?

AT&T in a statement said it was disappointed in the proposed rejection. Competition for other more reliable phone alternatives is robust, said Marc Blakeman, president of AT&T California. Blakeman said there are less than 5% of households in California that AT&T serves who still use copper-based landline phone service.

“We are disappointed by the CPUC’s proposed dismissal of our application for relief from Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) regulation, as we’d hoped the commission would allow us the opportunity to demonstrate why the number of options for voice service available to customers make the COLR obligation unnecessary," Blakeman said.

Not surprisingly, Blakeman said, no providers were interested in bidding on the carrier of last resort service "with a declining number of customers given the competitive options available in today’s marketplace. We remain committed to keeping our customers connected to voice service and will continue working with state leaders on policies that allow us to bring modern communications to Californians.”

AT&T made the request in California for a waiver and has also lobbied successfully for legislative reform in 20 other states, which eliminated the utility’s requirement to provide traditional landline service.

Blakeman said during climate disasters, when staying connected is essential, AT&T's fiber network is more reliable "than our outdated copper network" and that old copper cables take significantly longer to repair following weather events, in some cases taking weeks to dry due to damage from extensive rain and flooding.

Consumer advocates point to the need for electricity for most alternatives to traditional landlines and note that when there is no electricity, consumers can still use their landlines.

Is the proposed rejection expected to pass?

While the rejection is a proposal and still needs to be approved by the commission, Regina Costa, telecommunications policy director for The Utility Reform Network (TURN) in California, said she fully expects the board to approve it.

“What AT&T really wants is to stop providing essential telecom service to 99% of its service area, without providing a shred of evidence that there are real alternatives. This includes many areas threatened by wildfires, earthquakes, floods and power shutoffs," Costa said in a press release. "If AT&T gets its wish, it would significantly jeopardize public safety."

In an interview with USA TODAY, Costa, who is also chair of the telecommunications committee for the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, said California's proposed rejection of the landline waiver is on top of a recent rejection in Utah for another utility to waive its obligation to provide landlines.

"I think it's very important for consumers nationwide,'' Costa said. "I think that would give other states the impetus to look at the same thing."

Loss of landlines? Phone companies want to eliminate traditional landlines. What's at stake and who loses?

When deregulation took place in telecom, the assumption was there would be lots of alternatives to landlines, she said.

"I think California and Utah are stepping up to the plate and saying no, we need to think about this carefully,'' she said. "We need to make sure that all of our people have service. How do you let the largest carrier in a state walk out the door and the markets that they want to abandon are the ones that are most at risk?"

Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at blinfisher@USATODAY.com or follow her on X, Facebook or Instagram @blinfisher. Sign up for our free The Daily Money newsletter, which will include consumer news on Fridays,here.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Landlines are safe in California (for now). What does it mean for you?